On college campuses today, 'Smart Drugs' such as Ritalin, Adderall and Modafinil are getting increasingly popular. These drugs are used by students to study for longer periods and/or to be able to recollect what they've studied more effectively. The ethics of their [ab]use is debatable: is there harm in using these drugs? Is it unfair? Do they offer enough of a benefit? I personally believe that if these drugs are allowing academics to work better, and the health risks in taking these drugs aren't great, that there remains little reason to discourage their use.. Suppose, for example, that because an academic used this drug, he was able to figure out how to cure a disease.

The qualities which these drugs promote, such as concentration and energy, also happen to be Factors to Enlightenment. So my question is this: If a drug existed that was cheap, had no side effects, and it promoted wholesome factors to enlightenment you may not have otherwise been able to develop, would you take such a drug? If not, why not?

No i wouldnt. I was drug and alcohol dependent for about 20 years and there is a lot that goes into drug dependence. You have to worry about the right dosage, you have to worry about running out, you have to worry about tolerances, you have to worry about other drugs interactions. If you are dependent on a drug to maintain your "enlightenment" it isnt enlightenment its just a drug side effect. If you run out or have to stop taking the drug because of some other medical condition where are you?The real problem tho is the view that this kind of question betrays. If your view is that enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple matter of brain/body chemistry, that world view, that the self is just the brain/body, is called materialism and is one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of spirituality or spiritual progress.

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

m0rl0ck wrote:The real problem tho is the view that this kind of question betrays. If your view is that enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple matter of brain/body chemistry, that world view, that the self is just the brain/body, is called materialism and is one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of spirituality or spiritual progress.

So monks are materialists because they drink tea or coffee to improve their mindfulness? Should they stop?

lament wrote:So monks are materialists because they drink tea or coffee to improve their mindfulness? Should they stop?

I cant even beleive this is a serious question. Obviously there is a difference in degree here and if tea or coffee were taken away, virtually every habituated caffine user would still be able to do the things they needed to do, including concentrate. Personally, my best practice happens when i first get up, before i have even had my first cup of tea, and i go through about 10-12 teabags a day.

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

m0rl0ck wrote:No i wouldnt. I was drug and alcohol dependent for about 20 years and there is a lot that goes into drug dependence. You have to worry about the right dosage, you have to worry about running out, you have to worry about tolerances, you have to worry about other drugs interactions. If you are dependent on a drug to maintain your "enlightenment" it isnt enlightenment its just a drug side effect. If you run out or have to stop taking the drug because of some other medical condition where are you?

There may be drugs developed which do not cause dependence or have serious side-effects. If a drug was seriously addictive and harmful, of course no one would take it-- it wouldn't be worth it. But if a drug didn't have such side-effects, and made it easier to, say, meditate for longer periods without serious discomfort, I fail to see the reason why someone wouldn't take it.

m0rl0ck wrote:The real problem tho is the view that this kind of question betrays. If your view is that enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple matter of brain/body chemistry, that world view, that the self is just the brain/body, is called materialism and is one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of spirituality or spiritual progress.

There is little question in my mind certain material conditions are much more conductive towards the goal of enlightenment than others. Being near a teacher is a material condition, and so is not having debilitating disease. Having and maintaining an appropriate state of mind, which is heavily influenced by neurochemistry, is extremely advantageous to achieving one's spiritual goals. If we can safely achieve such an ideal state of mind pharmacologically, then why shouldn't we?

Viscid wrote:There may be drugs developed which do not cause dependence or have serious side-effects.

And pigs may someday fly, until then i wont worry about falling pig crap. The most serious side effect is that you have to keep taking the drug.

If someone is so seriously afflicted with pride that they cant muster the necessary surrender to endure the physical and mental pain of practice and instead pursue a path of attempted pharmacological transcendence all they are going to get is just a different kind of pain of much greater depth and intensity. Im telling you this from experience.The difference is that the path of practice has a light at the end of the tunnel.If someone is looking for the path of least resistance and wants to be lazy, after having tried everything else, i can tell you that practice is in fact that path of least resistance.

Last edited by m0rl0ck on Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html

Our parents view Ritalin as a way to calm their overactive children, which doctors and psychiatrists simply hand out when they are approached with a kid who is unable to maintain an extended attention span. It is considered a "quick fix" by many adults, not a potentially harmful, habit-forming drug. Parents are often unaware of the drug's dangers because a great deal of research has been ignored or kept quiet by pharmaceutical companies to promote sales (3). On the other hand, to college-aged and high school students it is just another drug that can be taken recreationally. Because it is prescribed, and not illegal, many people do not see an addiction to Ritalin as a "real" drug issue; many believe that one cannot become "addicted" to it because it comes from a doctor's office. It is harmful when abused, and people need to realize that.http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... ordan.html

Let the big pharma profiteers take their own toxic drugs, rather than pushing them onto our children. Please give Ritalin a wide, wide berth.

Spend the money you would have spent on drugs on doing wholesome deeds. Nothing acts faster than kusala kamma for creating natural hormones that are good for your sense of well-being. When the mind is happy it is easily concentrated. The concentrated mind can see things as they really are, which leads to insight and enlightenment.

If such a drug existed, I think it's not a violation of the 5th precept, since the full phrase includes "which lead to carelessness".

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

Consider all the uncertainty that we see on these pages and elsewhere about the nature of jhana, concentration, mindfulness, clear comprehension, Samatha, and so on. As soon as anyone says they have attained one of these states, there are several, usually contradictory, opinions expressed as to why they are wrong. People cite the suttas, their teachers, and their own experiences in support of a multitude of views as to what these states are actually like. For example, a frequent assertion is that there is "wrong concentration", or "That's sati, but not Samma Sati!"

Adding an ingested chemical component takes one further away from what the Buddha was talking about. I would be so bothered that I was experiencing a chemically-induced "near miss", so to speak, that I would not trust what I had actually experienced. A bit like someone who is convinced they are really witty while drunk, or really insightful when stoned. Later they realise that they had not been. The concern that I would have an analogous experience would be enough to stop me taking any substance which apparently induced a wholesome mental state. It might do exactly that, or there again it might not. Why add another variable, along with all the current difficulties of translation, culture, and personal kamma?

m0rl0ck wrote: The most serious side effect is that you have to keep taking the drug.

If the drug helps to meditate or to live, then Isn't it better to take it for life rather than suffer when it is avoidable?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

m0rl0ck wrote:No i wouldnt. I was drug and alcohol dependent for about 20 years and there is a lot that goes into drug dependence. You have to worry about the right dosage, you have to worry about running out, you have to worry about tolerances, you have to worry about other drugs interactions. If you are dependent on a drug to maintain your "enlightenment" it isnt enlightenment its just a drug side effect. If you run out or have to stop taking the drug because of some other medical condition where are you?

There may be drugs developed which do not cause dependence or have serious side-effects. If a drug was seriously addictive and harmful, of course no one would take it-- it wouldn't be worth it. But if a drug didn't have such side-effects, and made it easier to, say, meditate for longer periods without serious discomfort, I fail to see the reason why someone wouldn't take it.

m0rl0ck wrote:The real problem tho is the view that this kind of question betrays. If your view is that enlightenment, or whatever you want to call it, is a simple matter of brain/body chemistry, that world view, that the self is just the brain/body, is called materialism and is one of the major stumbling blocks to any kind of spirituality or spiritual progress.

There is little question in my mind certain material conditions are much more conductive towards the goal of enlightenment than others. Being near a teacher is a material condition, and so is not having debilitating disease. Having and maintaining an appropriate state of mind, which is heavily influenced by neurochemistry, is extremely advantageous to achieving one's spiritual goals. If we can safely achieve such an ideal state of mind pharmacologically, then why shouldn't we?

I thought Buddhism was about liberation from delusion. Apart from anything else this involves formation of new neural pathways, pathways that are formed by life experience and insight. Drugs cannot do it, any more than they can give us maturity and wisdom.

Discomfort, struggles, boredom, running into dead ends - this is life and learning to deal with all this and more is what practice is about. Bypassing the difficulties, we bypass the very essence of practice.

One of my children was diagnosed with ADHD and Sensory Integration Disorder. When the paediatrician prescribed ritalin it was a god-send. My son's performance at school and his interactions at home and with his peers improved beyond our expectations. I have no problem with the idea of ritalin or similar medications being used to treat conditions which limit a person's intellectual and/or social development.If a person is using ritalin as a 'smart' drug to help them get through exams - I am more ambivalent about its use. I think its far more beneficial for one to develop study skills and habits - not just for the short-term goal of doing well in a particular exam but in life generally.As for an aid for enlightenment - I am sceptical. The idea of a pharmacalogical aid for enlightenment is not new. And to date its only result has been various forms of intoxication or poisoning misdiagnosed as spiritual experience. I think if you are seeking an exotic experience then perhaps the Dhamma isn't for you (or for you yet).Wishing you all the best,

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Ben wrote:I think if you are seeking an exotic experience then perhaps the Dhamma isn't for you (or for you yet).Wishing you all the best,

This seems sort of addressed to me so: I am not taking any drugs myself, nor advocating their use for spiritual gain.

Dan74 wrote:I thought Buddhism was about liberation from delusion. Apart from anything else this involves formation of new neural pathways, pathways that are formed by life experience and insight. Drugs cannot do it, any more than they can give us maturity and wisdom.

But drugs may make us more capable at becoming mature and wise. What 'wisdom' and 'maturity' is is actually a very debatable thing, but it does require learning, and there are drugs available which make learning easier.

Discomfort, struggles, boredom, running into dead ends - this is life and learning to deal with all this and more is what practice is about. Bypassing the difficulties, we bypass the very essence of practice.

There's no reason why someone on such a drug I'm proposing would cease to have discomfort altogether-- if they were just drugged out on heroin constantly and in bliss happy land they'd probably have little incentive to practice. There's a degree to which a perception of suffering is necessary to encourage spiritual practice, but if we can remove unnecessary barriers to spiritual progress pharmacologically, we should.

Last edited by Viscid on Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Spend the money you would have spent on drugs on doing wholesome deeds. Nothing acts faster than kusala kamma for creating natural hormones that are good for your sense of well-being. When the mind is happy it is easily concentrated. The concentrated mind can see things as they really are, which leads to insight and enlightenment.

When this concentration is thus developed, thus well developed by you, then wherever you go, you will go in comfort. Wherever you stand, you will stand in comfort. Wherever you sit, you will sit in comfort. Wherever you lie down, you will lie down in comfort.

In France there is some exemples of overdose by this kind of "intelectual" medicaments. They was hospitalised etc.Why there is overdose? Becose like all drugs, when you start, you have direct and fast results, but after, organism becomes accustomed, and so he need more and more to fill a result; but when you take 20 tablets, you dont go in college, but in hospital, with prying that you will not die today...

In France such medicaments are prohibited, so studets cross all country to go in Belgium or Amsterdam etc...

Ben wrote:I think if you are seeking an exotic experience then perhaps the Dhamma isn't for you (or for you yet).Wishing you all the best,

This seems sort of addressed to me so: I am not taking any drugs myself, nor advocating their use for spiritual gain.

Not to you or anyone specifically. But sometimes we do have people here who are seeking some sort of exotic sensory experience whether it be drug mediated or not.kind regards,

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Viscid wrote:The qualities which these drugs promote, such as concentration and energy, also happen to be Factors to Enlightenment. So my question is this: If a drug existed that was cheap, had no side effects, and it promoted wholesome factors to enlightenment you may not have otherwise been able to develop, would you take such a drug? If not, why not?

Just so that you know: Yes there is harm in these drugs. Six percent of children who took Ritalin for 1 3/4 years in a study developed psychoses. (Cherland E. & Fitzpatrick R. Psychotic side effects of psychostimulants: a 5-year review. Can. J. Psychiatry 1999 Oct; 44(8):811-3). This drug is in good use for people who have ADHD because it's a dopamine reuptake inhibitor and people who suffer from ADHD produce too much dopamine.Now the brain of a healthy person is usually already optimally calibrated in this sense. People who take Ritaline with a healthy brain commonly loose their affect and don't learn affect-control properly.

Of course other side effects are just unknown. Some of these drugs may help the braincells to deteriorate faster with you ending up getting Alzheimers 30 years earlier.

Apart from that, all the current drugs that promise to enhance cognitive abilities just increase wakefulness - much like coffee or an energy drink. Plus the psychological side is, that people don't actually show enhanced cognitive abilities, but they rate themselves as more convinced of their own abilities after taking those drugs. People don't get better, but they believe they do. And what do people want braindrugs for?Some because they feel they can't hold up to modern burnout society anymore.Some because they fail their own high expectations. Some because they want to have an advantage over others..

Maybe this obsession for gain, power and success is the thing we should treat instead of a healthy brain.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

Ben wrote:I think if you are seeking an exotic experience then perhaps the Dhamma isn't for you (or for you yet).Wishing you all the best,

This seems sort of addressed to me so: I am not taking any drugs myself, nor advocating their use for spiritual gain.

Dan74 wrote:I thought Buddhism was about liberation from delusion. Apart from anything else this involves formation of new neural pathways, pathways that are formed by life experience and insight. Drugs cannot do it, any more than they can give us maturity and wisdom.

But drugs may make us more capable at becoming mature and wise. What 'wisdom' and 'maturity' is is actually a very debatable thing, but it does require learning, and there are drugs available which make learning easier.

Discomfort, struggles, boredom, running into dead ends - this is life and learning to deal with all this and more is what practice is about. Bypassing the difficulties, we bypass the very essence of practice.

There's no reason why someone on such a drug I'm proposing would cease to have discomfort altogether-- if they were just drugged out on heroin constantly and in bliss happy land they'd probably have little incentive to practice. There's a degree to which a perception of suffering is necessary to encourage spiritual practice, but if we can remove unnecessary barriers to spiritual progress pharmacologically, we should.

This is a massive "if".

From what I've read, we have a very very sketchy idea of how psychoactive drugs affect our functioning and what side effects they may have in the short and in the long term.

This notion of a magic pill that will remove some nasty chemical floating around my brain and make everything better, is a unfortunate fantasy.

Sure, there are cases where drugs may indeed help, but these are typically a matter of necessity. Sometimes it may help to stabilize until the person is able to deal with the issues but drugs are not the solution, they are at best a stop-gap measure.